Talk:Torah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pentateuch

Currently Pentateuch redirects here. I'm thinking about making that article about the Five Books of Moses, while this article would be about "the totality of Jewish teaching and practice" (to quote the lead). As of now, the article is a mix of both meanings, which is confusing and misleading.

The current lead:

Torah is a central concept in the Jewish tradition. It has a range of meanings: it can most specifically mean the first five books of the Tanakh, it can mean this plus the rabbinic commentaries on it, it can mean the continued narrative from Genesis to the end of the Tanakh, it can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching and practice.

demonstrates the problem with the combination.

Thoughts? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've checked and this is a good start. My source suggested rather:

"The Torah comprises the first five books of the Tanakh. It is a central concept in the Jewish tradition."

"It can also have a range of meanings. It can mean the first five books plus the rabbinic commentaries on it. It can mean the continued narrative from Genesis to the end of the Tanakh. It can even mean the totality of Jewish teaching and practice."

In other words, freeze a single definition right off. Then digress into the others. Drop the rest of the lead/summary. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you agree that both meanings should have a separate article, or do you think that they should stay combined in this one? -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO, leave combined. Student7 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree, splitting is the right thing to do. Debresser (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ypnypn: this article is about a central concept of Judaism. it also sucks as it is a hodge podge of rather trivial topics, and doesn't get to the core of the concept as I outlined in my talk entry above. I have not been able to write that yet, but at least I tried to add some beef to it with my entries about form and content. What I added was a begining to what makes it a uniquely jewish document as oppposed to a peice of the christian old testement or an archelogical relic discussed by academics. What I added was a begining of how it functions in the Jewish tradition.

Why did you pull that out into your pentatuch article leaving this one even more anemic than it already is? I had thought that further up there was a concensus to have the torah article be from a jewish perspective as the old testement article can be from a christian perspective (after all, old testement IS a christian concept) and the pentateuch article can be from an academic perspective.

You state that it is confusing and misleading that the article is a mix of both meanings (5books vs totality of teachings). It is not misleading at all and is only confusing if you don't understand the Jewish tradition. This ambiguity and the many other ambiguities about Torah are CENTRAL to the Jewish tradition. That is why I wrote the lead the way I did.

Perhaps the solution is that Torah is a bigger and more complex topic than pentateuch and thus the Torah article should be more comprehensive and Pentateuch can can be a synonym.

what do you think?Wikiskimmer (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think it's a problem to have two meanings mixed into one article, then I can undo my changes. But I think you may be overemphasizing how important the ambiguity is. As an observant Jew, I don't find people conflating the meanings. You're right that the concepts themselves aren't confusing, but when saying, for example, "Jews maintain that every letter of the Torah is divinely authored," we have to be clear which meaning we're referring to.

So if you think that we can discuss them together, and still be clear about which one we're talking about at each point, I'll be glad to revert my split. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

well... see... right there that statememt is is ambiguous poetry! Thanks for responding. I find in my jewish interactions that when we use the word torah we are being flexible. i guess to be specific we'd say chumash or torah scroll. Though for me that's problematic too beause in some ways from genesis to kings is also a cohesive narrative sweep.

here are the passages that i thought got gutted out that i thought are part of an essential article an torah in judaism. starting with:

The form of Torah is that of a narrative, from the beginning of God's creating the world,

up to:

These linkages play a role in the traditional interpretation of Torah.[20]

also the section god in torah.

i think these passages help explain how torah works in the jewish tradition. re: ambiguity... see, the resonances i'm talking about continue all the way up to the book of samuel.. which is not chumash, but the fact that that whole narative sweep is tied together... the fact that exile and return play out over and over again through the whole tanakh/jewish history... that's all torah.

what did you think about my talkpost further up, that this article is a collection of almost trivial bits and doesn't come out and say what torah actually is in judaism?Wikiskimmer (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Septuagint

The only mention of the Septuagint seems to imply that it is/was only used by Christians. This was not the case, as Christ wasn't born when it was being read. I think there should be a section on this. Perhaps there could be a larger section on Torah translations. Myrvin (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. See. Septuagint#Jewish_use. Jewish rituals changed in response to Christian usage and practice IMO. Septuagint abandoned when Christians essentially adopted it. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Unchanged copies.

In Production and use of a Torah scroll it says, in the voice of Wikipedia:"They are written using a painstakingly careful methodology by highly qualified scribes. This has resulted in modern copies of the text that are unchanged from millennia-old copies". Some people might believe this, but we need to know who they are. What is the evidence and how can it possibly be true? Against this view, I have been reading this [1] Myrvin (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Levy (p. 6) writes: "Though many medieval rabbis were haunted by the fear of having “two toroṯ,” by which they sometimes meant inconsistent wording or spelling of the Torah texts, and they did everything in their power to ensure that all copies of their scrolls were as nearly identical as possible, others were convinced that such agreement was unattainable."Myrvin (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There being no response here, I have included Levy's views in the text. Myrvin (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Both. I recall The Promise (Potok novel) where the protagonist, struggling to become an Orthodox rabbi, is tested as he is about to graduate. He emends a translation, absolutely forbidden by fundamental Orthodoxy, in one of the climaxes of the novel. The emendation resulting from the passage making absolutely no sense otherwise (from his pov, obviously, not from the pov of the rabbinical school!) Student7 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

technical issue

This article has hyperlinks to Pentateuch. Pentateuch automatically redirects back here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.34.76 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Consistency in citing the Talmud

This page contains multiple citations of the Talmud. I've seen at least three different styles. Is there a consensus as to how it should be done? MosheEmes (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. Maybe bring this up at WikiProject Judaism? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See there. MosheEmes (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Torah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120817031044/http://www.uscj.org/The_Authentic_Trienn7085.html to http://www.uscj.org/The_Authentic_Trienn7085.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the "authorship" section

I've made a large edit to the authorship section to bring it into line with modern biblical scholarship. The major changes are: 1. Mosaic authorship. I've deleted this entirely and replaced it with a single sentence noting its existence. It has no following at all among modern scholars - this can be checked from authoritative sources such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary - and due weight means that it shouldn't be treated as if it does. I've kept a link to the article on the subject, since it does have some historical interest. 2. Modern scholarship. This was as much out of date as the subsection on Mosaic authorship - the description given was of the Wellhausen version of the documentary model, which has been abandoned since the 1970s. There was nothing at all about contemporary theories, which tend to belong to the supplementary model (fragmentary models aren't actually very influential). PiCo (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

First you have no references, second the other does so either supply them or I will revert it back. As the other version is referenced. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The lack of references for such a major change is a big problem. I'd expect citations specifically documenting the change of opinion within the field. There's also some regional bias in that there's no particular reason to prefer a European theory over an American one. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The changes aren't really so major. The last para of the subsection on Mosaic authorship already says this: "Mosaic authorship was accepted with very little discussion by both Jews and Christians until the 17th century, when the rise of secular scholarship and the associated willingness to subject even the Bible to the test of reason led to its rejection by mainstream biblical scholars. The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE." In other words, Mosaic authorship isn't accepted by mainstream modern scholarship. Giving it this large section, as if it were still important, is therefore misleading our readers. I have no quarrel with mentioning it in a single sentence with a link to the separate article on the subject. (Material from this subsection mi9ght usefully be moved into that article, which is a little thin in some regards).

The section on modern scholarship is simply wrong. The documentary hypothesis it describes is that of Wellhausen, and is now over a century old - the modern documentary hypothesis is somewhat different, as the Wiki article on the subject makes clear. Things have moved on. In my first post in this thread I mentioned the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Please have a look at that. PiCo (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you were Bruce Metzger all these words would have some weight. As it is, we're still at the "no citations" stage. Quite beyond the (in my opinion) excessive reduction of the material, you've given no proof that this change of opinion has taken place. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pico, we have no arguement with what you are saying, it is the fact that you have not supplied evidence for your case, when the other version had some. Please discuss this further with references for your argument. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm trying to give up Wikipedia :). I'll let it go. PiCo (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be like that, the fact is anyone can write crap, I learn't the hard way about referencing my work, and no mostly do not write anything without a reference. 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To not be so bias I believe this section should be added.

As C. S. Lewis, a scholar, put it, “There used to be English scholars who were prepared to cut up Henry VI between half a dozen authors and assign his share to each. We don’t do that now… Everywhere, except in theology, there has been a vigorous growth of skepticism about skepticism itself.”

	+	

Any student of literature knows that a single author can adopt many different styles according to the needs of the work at hand. To use style, then, as a basis for distinguishing between multiple authors is, at best, a dangerous exercise, prone to error.

The reference is from a modern scholar,Colin Smith,... in one of his references he quotes CS Lewis, a english scholar. Since we are debating writing style of a book, it applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.93.238 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither Colin S. Smith or C.S. Lewis come even close to being a reliable source on the Torah. Smith does not even hold a PhD, and Lewis held a PhD in an irrelevant filed (as regards Torah studies). Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Please add a link to a video. The link may be called: "A video lecture on the Torah by Dr. Michael Chighel" The link is here: http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/3211480/jewish/Lesson-2-Moses-and-the-Non-Prophets.htm

Chighel (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not Done - you have been adding this link to a video with your name in it across Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with WP:Spam.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Torah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817031044/http://www.uscj.org/The_Authentic_Trienn7085.html to http://www.uscj.org/The_Authentic_Trienn7085.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523195538/http://www.geniza.net/ritual/mb/letterforms.shtml to http://www.geniza.net/ritual/mb/letterforms.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513034243/http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/bible/07.html to http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/bible/07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Since when have complete Torah scrolls been produced?

The question and the discussion I hope it will get started is already posted here, at the Sefer Torah talk-page. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Mention of the Elephantine papyri in the compilation section WP:DUE?

Given that the later composition of the Torah is a minority position, is mentioning the lack of reference to the Torah/Exodus in the Elephantine papyri WP:DUE? We don't provide any evidence in favor of the majority position, after all, why should we provide evidence against it?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The lack of Torah mss at Elephantine is actually evidence of a late Persian composition, ie., the latter end of the majority position. (Elephantine mss date from late 5th century, which is late Persian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.217.141 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

On page 190 of the source cited (Gmirkin), he specifically argues that the Exodus was composed "sometime after 285 BC" [2]. Gmirkin is clearly not arguing for a late Persian date. The article on the Elephantine papyri also seems to overemphasize the extreme late dating. This is a minority position. If we include it here we need to make that clear and also include the reasons why the majority dates the Torah earlier.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not censored

See WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia does not censor the word Yahweh. And... Moses wrote the Torah? That's ROFLMAO at WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Torah in other languages

Regarding the reverted claim that the Mongolian and Manchu words for law are derived from the word Torah

From Pamela Kyle Crossley The Manchus Blackwell, 1997 p.33

By the time of Nurgachi, the language spoken by his followers had been enriched by a vocabulary laced with words from Mongolian, Russian, Chinese, Turkic, Arabic, and ultimately, Hebrew (as, for instance doro,"law" from Mongolian dörö,from Hebrew torah

She is a pretty well known scholar of Manchu and Central Asian history https://history.dartmouth.edu/people/pamela-kyle-crossley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanba42 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This still seems extremely fishy. I'm going to see if WP:WikiProject East Asia and wp:WikiProject Mongols can confirm this.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Law of Moses

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, but to link with a see also and await expansion. Klbrain (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

---

According to Law of Moses, that term is effectively a synonym for Written Torah. A brief section on terminology can be added to this article, but other than that content of the other article seems to overlap completely with what's covered here. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is an old proposal. I don't even remember what came from it before, and whether it was formally discussed or just brought up somewhere as an idea. The mean problem I see with this proposal is that both articles are quite large and the merge would have to be done carefully, to keep all necessary information and merge the two articles into one organic whole. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• While both articles revolve around the same subject, perhaps a simple "See also" will satisfy the need for distinction. The word "Torah" is, basically, the way Hebrew speakers relate to the Mosaic Law, and, therefore, its emphasis may be somewhat different to what we find in Law of Moses, which article seems to address more a non-Jewish readership. Moreover, the word "Torah" has a slightly broader definition than the words "Law of Moses." I agree, though, with Debresser that if the merger can be done very carefully (without expunging important facts from either article), I can also agree to a merge.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena: I find the article a bit lacking. The part about contents is all about narrative contents - the role of law is missing, pretty much. Also it treats the five books as if they were independent, when in fact its a single story, from Creation to the moment just before the entry into the Land. (To summarise the story: God creates the world for mankind (Adam), mankind loses it, Adam's descendants in the senior line are the ancestors of the Jews, the Jews fall into slavery, and God takes them out of slavery and leads them back to the Land - the story is so beautiful and so simple really). Achar Sva (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there seems to be a place to expand on the constitutional/law aspects found in the Law of Moses, or Mosaic law. As all things here, it takes a willing editor to dig-up the research material needed to add to this article.Davidbena (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede

I think the paragraphs are in the wrong order in the lede. Crookesmoor (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Missing Books of Torah (tanakh).

Why certain books of Torah are missing from that available to the general people? Saeed H H Alyousuf Saeedalyousuf (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Frei's theory

I changed the sentence regarding Frei's theory on imperial authorization of the Torah to more accurately reflect the characterization made by the cited source (that the theory was, according to the cited author, "systematically dismantled", not "demolished" as was originally stated). However, I feel like a statement claiming that a (formerly) widespread theory has lost all credibility needs a wider citation of literature to support this. I have no experience in this area (I only stumbled upon this section due to needing the date of compilation for the Torah in connection with a seminar on legal history), but am hoping someone might be able to dig up some more sources. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 11:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ska disagrees with Frei's theory, but he's also a lot more measured about the state of the art concerning the circumstances surrounding the compilation, concluding that there is no consensus on the issue. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Liberal scholars

@Lpartain1971: Bart Ehrman has stated:

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yahweh

The word "Yahweh" is WP:NOTCENSORED. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Teaching the Torah"

The Torah may be used as a synonym for "God's Law," that being the whole of Mosaic Law (the Law given from God through Moses) as well as a term describing the summation of the two precepts of the 10 Commandments as listed in the Book of Deuteronomy, being "Love God" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." (In a word, "God's Law" is "Love.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.70.247 (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No WP:SOURCES, no edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Below is my openion

about torah i think It is a great book and I think you have to take common word from each pages and those word are different that. That is the code of torah From each page

I don't know he is god or not bcz it is unbelievable 171.49.158.195 (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the terms "bible" & "old/new testament"

This Wikipedia page uses the terms "bible," "old testament" and "new testament" throughout the text. These are incorrect descriptors and come from a Christo-centric perspective. It is not the appropriate or correct vocabulary to use. The name for the book of the Christian religion is the bible. Just as the name of the book of the Muslim religion is the Quran - the name of the Jewish religion's book is the Torah. For example, the Quran is never referred to as the Muslim bible.

Additionally, the Christian bible is not a continuation of the Torah in Judaism. Christianity may view their scripture as such, however, it is not the perspective of the Jewish religion. Nor is the Christian bible the improvement of the Torah. Therefore, it is incorrect nomenclature to refer to the Torah as the "old testament."

The correct way to speak of the books of religion is to use the appropriate terms that each religion uses. The scripture for Judaism is the Torah. The scripture for Islam is the Quran. The scripture for Christianity is the Bible. 68.174.25.190 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is also about the first five books of the Christian Bible/Old Testamemt - thevPentateuch, if you will. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Bible" is also used by Jews to refer to the Hebrew Bible - e.g. The Art of Biblical Narrative. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Samaritan Torah

A reference to the Samaritan Pentateuch is relevant here. Here is the first para of the Samaritan Torah article. The Samaritan Torah (Samaritan Hebrew: ‮ࠕࠫ‎‬ࠅࠓࠡࠄ‎, Tōrāʾ), also called the Samaritan Pentateuch, is a text of the Torah written in the Samaritan script and used as sacred scripture by the Samaritans. It states 'a text of the Torah' Not an un related document. Whilst this article states. The Torah (/ˈtɔːrə, ˈtoʊrə/; Biblical Hebrew: תּוֹרָה‎ Tōrā, "Instruction", "Teaching" or "Law") is the compilation of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, namely the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 'Compilation of the first five books'. Again, not the Jewish Hebrew compilation of the first five books. However the reference should be broken out later and not placed in the first paragraph of the lede. I suggest that we add this to the lede section, and we can discuss the appropriate place. The Samaritan Torah (Samaritan Hebrew: ‮ࠕࠫ‎‬ࠅࠓࠡࠄ‎, Tōrāʾ), also called the Samaritan Pentateuch, is a text of the Torah written in the Samaritan script and used as sacred scripture by the Samaritans.Pngeditor (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a sentence in the lead and a small part in the body of the text probably should be devoted to the Samaritan Torah, as both it and the Hebrew Torah go back to the early Torah history. Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Samaritan Torah has its own page. Having a link to it somewhere in this article is perfectly fine, as its significance isn’t under examination here. However, there is no reason the Samaritan Hebrew word for Torah should go here - for the same reason the Koine Greek term for “Old Testament” doesn’t go in the translation section in the lede of Tanakh. Related, sure, but the English word “Torah” does not derive from the Samaritan Hebrew rendition of the word, and this article is not about the Samaritan Pentateuch. Zhomron (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

“At times” Torah=tanakh??

At What times does tanakh = Torah? Evidence/source please Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Admin keeps reverting relevant info regarding Biblical Minimalism

As a relatively new Wikipedian I'm expecting a bit of toxic masculinity. But plainly stating that links to other Wikipedia articles are not relevant sources is just insulting. I'd be glad if there would be a serious attempt of an excuse. 2A01:C23:6019:8A00:E19A:5A01:BC9D:CF57 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Tora

The correct transcription (both Simple and Scientific) of the word ‘תּוֹרָה’ according to the Rules of Transcription of the Academy of the Hebrew Language is Tora. מושא עקיף (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The title is based on the English common name, not any transcription. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a Hebrew word. Using the Latin alphabet doesn’t make it an English word.

I understand that <Torah> is more common, but if we don’t change it, the mistake will continue to exist.

What about, at least, adding that the correct transcription is <Tora>?

By the way, I think that <Tora> is a transliteration. מושא עקיף (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a mistake; it's an alternative transliteration that is perfectly valid, and here, most common. A final 'h' is silent in English, so it is functionally irrelevant, and the Academy of the Hebrew Language is not what is followed on Wikipedia. When the lines on Ngrams draw close, we can have a discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Questions:

What is the oldest torah ever found? I.e. what is the oldest, full copy or fragment, of text containing the old testament?

Who wrote the first torah? 2A0D:6FC2:61B3:FA00:A023:8B4E:3147:454D (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Aleppo codex?? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The five books of Moses were written by Moses with the help of God. Geeschlez (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:RNPOV and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph in lead

Hi @EveryRay432, I removed that paragraph because the lead section of the article should summarize the content of the article, which the paragraph that I removed does not. That paragraph is also not neutral: it presents a particular point of view in a writing style similar to an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Please take a look at our guideline on words to watch and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it seems from the pages history that the section was long-standing, so removing it would no doubt require consensus. I strongly believe mentioning that the term "Torah" is also used to designate the entire Hebrew Bible is important. There’s reliable sources for this (which I’ve added in the section “Meaning and names”), just as there are reliable sources for the "Torah" also being used to designate the the first five books. Both should be mentioned to avoid a biased POV. EveryRay432 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi EveryRay, deleting something that violates guidelines does not require consensus. Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections (the opening paragraphs of an article above the first section) say that the lead should summarize the content of the article. The following paragraph already states that "Torah" is interpreted to mean both the written and the oral Torah.

Additionally, there is nothing in the body of the article that reflects what is written in this paragraph, particularly the following:

Representing the core of the Jewish spiritual and religious tradition, the Torah is a term and a set of teachings that are explicitly self-positioned as encompassing as many as 70 or potentially infinite faces and interpretations, making an unequivocal definition of Torah impossible. Common to all these meanings, the Torah consists of the origin of Jewish peoplehood: their call into being by their God, their trials and tribulations, and their covenant with their God, which involves following a way of life embodied in a set of moral and religious obligations and civil laws (halakha).

That quoted section also should not be in the lead because it is written in a non-neutral manner. For example, it states as fact this interpretation, which is the citation at the end of the first sentence. Additionally, the second sentence, beginning with "Common to all these meanings" again presents as fact a particular position about Jewish personhood.

Also, I note that you've just created your account, that your only edits have been to this page, and that you seem to have a grasp of how page histories work. Have you edited Wikipedia before? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well it now summarizes the content of the article, since I’ve added a reliable source from Britannia. I also don’t see how any of the things you quoted aren’t neutral. The sources cited are also all reliable. EveryRay432 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to request a third opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The Manual of Style states that the lead section (MOS:LEAD) should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've taken a look at the disputed sections in the lead and while some of the content exists in the main text, there are interpretations which appear only in the lead. This is giving undue weight to these interpretations. The disputed section of the lead is redundant by the following section, which is worded in a more neutral manner summarising the actual content. Longevity is not a shield for content which does not align with our policy and guidelines. I support removing this section of the lead. Polyamorph (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Looks like the other editor was blocked as a sock, so I will go ahead and remove it. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)